Membership Approves 14 Referendum Issues, Including Competitive Balance; One Issue Virtual Tie
90 Percent of Ballots Returned; Competitive Balance Plan Passes by 88 Votes and Will Be Implemented In 2016-17. One Issue is Virtual Tie and Will be Recounted Next Week

COLUMBUS, Ohio — Ohio High School Athletic Association member schools passed 14 proposed Constitution and Bylaw revisions, Commissioner Daniel B. Ross, Ph.D., announced Friday following ballot counting. One item, regarding a proposed Constitution revision that would make it mandatory for schools to return a ballot, is a virtual tie and will be recounted next week. The OHSAA’s annual referendum voting period is from May 1-15, with approved items going into effect August 1 unless otherwise noted.

After a total of 820 ballots were mailed in late April, 737 were returned for a voter turnout of 90 percent. Only 83 member schools did not return a ballot.

Highlighting the referendum voting was approval of a Competitive Balance Plan that makes modifications on how schools are placed in tournament divisions in team sports. The plan, approved by the membership after three similar proposals were narrowly defeated between 2011 and 2013, passed 411 votes to 323 votes (56 percent to 44 percent, with three ballots abstaining). It will become effective during the 2016-17 school year.

“On behalf of the Board of Directors and Competitive Balance Committee, I want to thank the membership for having the confidence in this plan and voting to move forward with implementation,” Ross said. “While passing the plan was a major step and truly exciting, our work is just beginning since the Competitive Balance Committee will continue to clarify any unanswered questions and our staff will put all the wheels in motion to finalize the electronic roster collection system.

“As we’ve said before, this plan is similar to last year’s, but this version is the result of a compilation of input from our superintendents, principals, athletic administrators and coaches. I’m most proud that we were able to work together and come up with a solution that will create a better system than we currently have because it looks at how schools secure the enrollment of their students participating in interscholastic athletics.”

In addition to the size of a school’s enrollment, the Completive Balance Plan will have new modifying factors that will be applied to students on each roster on a sport-by-sport basis and are based on where the student’s parents reside and/or the educational system history of the student. All schools will be subject to the factors of the formula, which will be applied to students in the sports of football, soccer and volleyball in the fall, basketball in the winter and baseball and softball in the spring. Click here for a link to the details of the plan: http://www.ohsaa.org/news/2014-03-19...nformation.pdf.

All fifteen 2014 proposals were placed up for referendum vote by the OHSAA Board of Directors. High school principals had between May 1 and 15 to cast their votes on 14 of the issues, and one issue was voted upon by 7th- and 8th-grade principals. A simple majority is all that is required for a proposed amendment to be adopted.
The complete final voting results are available on the OHSAA website (ohsaa.org), and the 2014-15 OHSAA Constitution and Bylaws will be posted on the site sometime in late June.

A Review of the 2014 OHSAA Referendum Issues

1.) Constitution 8-1-1, Amendments to the Constitution and Bylaws
This clarifies that ballots for referendum voting are due to the OHSAA Office no later than 4:00 p.m. on May 15.
694 in favor; 33 opposed

2.) Constitution 8-1-9, Amendments to the Constitution and Bylaws
This requires school principals to return the referendum ballot, whether voting or not, by the May 15 deadline or be subject to a fine as established by the Board of Directors.
Virtual Tie – Will Be Recounted May 20

3.) Bylaw 2, Classification and Organization and Tournaments – COMPETITIVE BALANCE
This amends Bylaw 2 by adding a new section 2 that will assign schools in team sports to a division based upon that school’s Adjusted Enrollment Count, which will be determined by adding the Initial Enrollment Count (EMIS reported number of boys or girls) and the Additional Roster Count for a given sport. Further details are posted at OHSAA.org.
411 in favor; 323 opposed

4.) Bylaw 4-3-1, Enrollment and Attendance, Add Exception 8
This adds an exception that would cover any subsequent changes to the Ohio Revised Code which might affect a student’s ability to participate in interscholastic athletics when he/she is not enrolled in and attending a member school.
677 in favor; 34 opposed

5.) Bylaw 4-3-5 and New Bylaw 4-3-6, Enrollment and Attendance — Graduate
This clarifies the procedures that the Commissioner’s Office may utilize in considering whether a student educated in another country may continue to participate in interscholastic athletics in Ohio. New Bylaw 4-3-6 also provides concrete examples of a student whose program in another country would not be sufficient for graduation from an Ohio high school.
682 in favor; 44 opposed

6.) Bylaw 4-4-4 and Bylaw 4-4-7, Scholarship
The amendment to Bylaw 4-4-4 adds the word “immediately” before “preceding grading period” to provide consistency to the scholarship bylaw, indicating that grades from the grading period which precedes the participation are the ones which shall be considered. The amendment to Bylaw 4-4-7 simplifies the bylaw by indicating that summer school or other educational options cannot be used to restore eligibility for either high school or 7th-8th grade students who fail to meet the required standards.
674 in favor; 48 opposed

7.) Bylaw 4-6-3, Residence, Exceptions 2 and 4 — Parents Outside Ohio
Exception 2 has been rewritten to clarify that a student whose parents move outside of Ohio remains eligible for the remainder of the 11th grade year and the senior year provided continuous enrollment is maintained in that high school. The change in language in Exception 4 clarifies that a student must be enrolled in a parochial school of the same system by the beginning of grade four in order to have eligibility in Ohio in a high school in that parochial system.
652 in favor; 74 opposed

8.) Bylaw 4-7-2, Transfers (Editorial Revision) and Bylaw 4-7-3, Transfers (Addition of Note)
This clarifies that the penalty for transfer students who do not meet an exception shall be ineligibility for all contests until after the first 50 percent of the maximum allowable regular season contests in those sports in which the student participated during the 12 months immediately preceding the transfer have been completed (indicating that scrimmages, previews, jamborees and Foundation Games would be included). The note in 4-7-3 clarifies that a student who transfers during that sports season shall be ineligible for the remainder of that sports season, and the 50 percent penalty may carry over to the following season (Example: football player transfers after week six. The player will be ineligible for the remaining four games of that season and will not regain eligibility at that school until game two of the next football season to satisfy the 50 percent penalty.).
660 opposed; 70 in favor

9.) Bylaw 4-7-2, Transfers, Exception 1, Parents’ Bona Fide Move
This adds a provision that would permit the Commissioner’s Office to extend conditional eligibility for up to 90 days when one parent cannot make a move and the former residence is more than 100 miles from the current residence in Ohio. The change also makes it clear that regardless of whether the move is from outside of Ohio into Ohio or between two districts in Ohio, the student’s only choices are the public high school in the new district of residence or any non-public high school.
682 in favor; 50 opposed

10.) Bylaw 4-7-2, Transfers, Exception 2, Legal Change of Custody
This permits the Commissioner’s Office to approve transfer eligibility after considering extenuating circumstances that may compel a student who is 18 and no longer eligible for a legal change of custody to transfer schools and move into a new residence with a parent.
681 in favor; 51 opposed

11.) Bylaw 4-7-2, Transfers, Exception 3 — School Closes
This adds language to clarify that once a student enrolls in another high school, the student’s eligibility is at that high school insofar as transfer is concerned. In addition, notes have been added to refer members to Bylaw 4-7-4 when closings within a multiple high school public school district occurs and indicates that the exception does not apply to community schools or non-chartered non-public (‘08) schools.
691 in favor; 39 opposed

12.) Bylaw 4-7-2, Transfers, New Exception 7 — Anti-Harassment, Anti-Intimidation, Anti-Bullying
This new exception addresses cases of severe harassment, intimidation and/or bullying that place a student’s health and welfare in jeopardy should the student continue enrollment at a high school. Consideration for this exception would require documentation from the school in accordance with established Ohio Department of Education or Board of Education/governing board policies as outlined in the proposed five steps within this exception.
539 in favor; 192 opposed

13.) Bylaw 4-9-3, Mass Marketing, Permissible Locations of Open Houses
An issue that was narrowly defeated in 2013, this proposal allows schools to request a waiver that their open houses be permitted to be conducted in another location other than the high school campus that is open to the general public. This would exclude private clubs, a private room within a public facility or a private home that is not accessible to all persons.
529 in favor; 200 opposed

14.) Bylaw 4-9, Mass Marketing, Attendance at a Contest or Athletic Related Event
This clarifies that an invitation to attend a high school contest or athletic related event is to watch the contest only and shall not include running out onto the contest venue with the team or standing on the sidelines and shall not include locker room visits, pre-contest meals with the high school team and/or any other interaction with the team prior to or after the contest.
553 in favor; 175 opposed

15.) Bylaw 4-3-4, Semesters for Grades 7-8 (New)
Related to the eight-semester high school rule, this amendment permits students who complete the sixth grade and before entering the ninth grade eligibility for athletic competition for a period not to exceed four semesters taken in order of attendance, whether the student participates or not. The issue was raised by administrators who are concerned about the “redshirting” of students in grades seven and eight.
377 in favor; 64 opposed

820 high school ballots were mailed, 737 ballots were returned including 1 invalid (90 percent)

So will this get Glenville/Massillon Washington type teams back in D1?

It's hard to say with a detailed analysis of the rosters from 7th grade through HS -- but Massillon and Glenville were 60 and 150 kids away from the D1 cutoff, respectively. That's a lot of ground to make up.

It may shuffle a couple teams around but IMHO not enough to really shake things up.

Concur. Bumping Ursuline or Mooney up a notch changes nothing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Auggie

Expect to see more draconian multipliers and something to appease the small-mid Div I pubs in 2-4 years.

There's nothing you can do to appease the small D1's -- except using a multiplier so large that it knocks them down into DII. How big of a number do you need to have to move schools from DIII to DI? Because that's about what would need to happen to accomplish that.

Here's an exercise for the pro-multiplier crowd: tell us which schools (by dint of their actual enrollment and/or roster profile) should be D1.

There's nothing you can do to appease the small D1's -- except using a multiplier so large that it knocks them down into DII. How big of a number do you need to have to move schools from DIII to DI? Because that's about what would need to happen to accomplish that.

Here's an exercise for the pro-multiplier crowd: tell us which schools (by dint of their actual enrollment and/or roster profile) should be D1.

“I hope they do something for the Division 1 schools that this proposal does not help.”

“Step in the right direction.”

“The criteria punishes small catholic schools by only allowing students from the same city’s Catholic feeder schools not to be counted against them. There are many towns that do not have a Catholic high school, so all of those students will count against a given Catholic school, even if it is the closest in proximity. In my opinion, if a student remains in the Catholic school system, he/she should not be counted against any Catholic high school.”

“Great start to changing things up-not sure if the system will be the right system but it is a start and hopefully we can work the bugs out.”

“Does not help all of its members. They totally left out the D1 schools. This brings a bunch of work for ADs and some have gone through personnel cuts, so they don’t have the support to get this done.”

“This is the most reasonable version to date. The recording, tracking and data input requirements for a system that OHSAA said they would begin working on if it passed, seems to be trouble waiting to happen. I feel like we will need a full-time compliance person to find where people went to school in grade seven. Parents are historically unreliable in reporting the truth if lying gets them what they want. We barely get by with our athletic budget now. To hire more help is not possible. Thus, I will probably have it added to my already deep pile.”

“Good start, values may need amended after effects evaluated.”

“What a hot mess this is going to create. How long before we put something else on the ballot because this process was not thought out. Maybe we need a new OHSAA???? Those running OHSAA really have not put the thought of the membership into consideration. Ram down their throats and they will cave. The North needs to get busy again. They can not be happy about this vote.”

“As a private school we felt like some issues that we were concerned with (students coming from our elementary school and middle school being multiplied and the transfer rule) were both addressed. It seemed fair to compromise on other issues so we decided that the CBP was a fair place to land in the middle.”

“A good start for helping define competitive balance.”

“We feel the OHSAA was going to keep pushing something until it eventually passed. Not sure they care if it will actually make a difference, the amount of work applied to the schools, or if they can get it accurate. They just wanted something passed, anything passed, so they can say they did something. Not the right reason to be doing this.”

“Great starting point so everyone can “get off the schnied”. Yes, it will need to be adjusted…..yes, DI will need to be examined and dealt with. But, now we move forward and people quit “wallowing” in the past.”

“The general thought is that they pacified those who led the charge to take a public/private vote previously. I highly doubt this will change anything and have a suspicion that it will create more imbalance and more inequity. “

“My resignation letter is being printed as I type. Goodbye OHSAA.”

“It is the best they have come up with to date, hopefully they keep after it and continue to improve it.”

“I think it is a step in the right direction. I am sure it will need to be tweeked a little after a year or so. I would like them to to use the tournament roster from the year before. I am concerned that a Freshman or Sophomore that is not a star player might get cut from team if school is close to moving to next division.”

“It’s a ton of work for the schools, and the OHSAA is not ready for this work with a shrinking staff up there. No data was presented on how effective this could be. Take another survey and take a vote of confidence in the OHSAA leadership and see what you get. Shame on the Board of Directors who meet less and less and just accept this kind of effort from the Commissioners.”

“It does not address the needs of smaller Division I schools. The OHSAA split Division I in football and it worked nicely. In this model, schools’ enrollment counts can only increase, which fails to help schools our size. The current Division I opponents will remain Division I, and as long as the OHSAA continues to divide schools evenly in divisions by enrollment without adding another division, schools our size (approx. 400 boys 10-12) will continue to play schools with twice or three times as many boys in tournament play. That is not competitive balance.”

“A lot of work for ADs, with very few changes.”

“Not sure it is really going to make a difference since the multiplier is still subjective.”

Yep. Many comments about the burden put on the schools themselves. And probably nothing of magnitude is going to change. D1 untouched. The usual strong programs will remain strong. And about 200 or so always bad programs will still be bad. Some could actually be punished if open enrollment or small private. But hey, good job ohsaa....you did "something"

Spot on. Or SVSM or Steubenville or other schools like them for that matter.

It will be interesting to see how many schools actually change division because of this.

Consider SVSM. They made DIII by one kid. Theoretically, a couple of schools could get bumped up to DIII -- and send SVSM back down to DIV. As a practical matter, that's unlikely to happen -- but it would make for pretty rich sauce if it did.

A. The multiplier in general.
B. The specific multipliers that you chose.

I feel that a multiplier can level the playing field between public, open enrollment public, and private schools.

1.0 multiplier is basic, a public school with no open enrollment. They have what they have plus lose some to open publics and privates...

1.33 for open enrollment publics. They must take everyone in their district but can take students outside. This gives them an advantage over the closed public schools...

1.67 for private schools. They do not have to take any students that live near the school so they basically hand pick all of their students. Even the feeder schools have students from all over. They have a bigger advantage over closed public schools and a slighter advantage over open enrollment publics.

Consider Cleveland Lincoln-West. It's in an open enrollment district -- yet one that loses far more students than it gains. What is the rationale for punishing them with a multiplier?

For that matter, what's the rationale for punishing all open-enrollment schools as a group? The data clearly show that open-enrollment schools have less success that closed-enrollment schools. Are facts irrelevant?

Consider a private school which accepts every applicant. What is the rationale for punishing them with a multiplier?

Consider Cleveland Lincoln-West. It's in an open enrollment district -- yet one that loses far more students than it gains. What is the rationale for punishing them with a multiplier?

For that matter, what's the rationale for punishing all open-enrollment schools as a group? The data clearly show that open-enrollment schools have less success that closed-enrollment schools. Are facts irrelevant?

Consider a private school which accepts every applicant. What is the rationale for punishing them with a multiplier?

I'm not sure what their enrollment is or if the 1.33 X would move them to D1 or not. The multiplier does not hurt them in regards of going for a league title and I doubt this team has any real expectations of winning state in a given year. Maybe they should look into why they are losing students?

I don't see a multiplier as a punishment but just a divisional classification. Most teams who can contend for a state title in 1 division could also make a run in the next higher division with maybe an exception of moving up to D1 but only the top 64 actually make it to D1 anyhow. I would be surprised if any open enrollment public school would move to D1 that is currently D2 it would more likely be D2 private schools that would take the place of some closed public schools.

Open public schools having less success than closed public schools has nothing to do with anything. It has to do with the opportunity of improving a team by gaining a stud that does not live in your district especially in basketball which it would have more of an impact. I'm sure most open enrollment public schools are that way to create income/tuitiion from those out of district students.

Private schools that accept everyone still would have the multiplier as they can get those students from anywhere. I doubt these private schools are too worried about the enrollment numbers that place them in a certain division. Again, any private school that can win state in D7 would also be a threat in D6, and etc....

I like Vamp's idea. Simple and easy to manage. Maybe a provision that if a school does not qualify for the playoffs for x amount of years(say 4 or 5) then the multiplier is waived.

I would actually like to see 1 open division where any team can choose to play in it and we can claim a true State of Ohio champion. It would be like the D1 we have now but there would not be a specific number of teams but a minimum of 64. Teams could get bumped out if they liked if another team with a lower enrollment number chooses to move up. Example: Lets say Mooney, Ursuline, ASVSM, Massillon all choose to move up to the Super D1. Then the teams who are currently 64, 63, 62, and 61 would have the option of staying or dropping to D2. If 2 of them decide to stay in D1 then we would have 66 teams that season in the Super D1. The Super D1 state champion would get a bigger trophy and would be crowned the over all state champion.

The multiplier does not hurt them in regards of going for a league title and I doubt this team has any real expectations of winning state in a given year.

So the non-contenders are of no consequence in your consideration?

Quote:

Originally Posted by vamp2syd

I don't see a multiplier as a punishment but just a divisional classification.

If it makes it harder for them to win a title, it's a punishment.

If it doesn't make it harder, then it's a pointless waste of time and money for every school in the state.

Which is it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by vamp2syd

Most teams who can contend for a state title in 1 division could also make a run in the next higher division with maybe an exception of moving up to D1 but only the top 64 actually make it to D1 anyhow.

If you support this transitive property of competition, then you should also support a realignment into only two or three divisions. After all, a D7 contender is also a D4 contender, right?

Quote:

Originally Posted by vamp2syd

I would be surprised if any open enrollment public school would move to D1 that is currently D2 it would more likely be D2 private schools that would take the place of some closed public schools.

There are only 5 private schools in D2. Only 2 made the playoffs. Tell us how moving any number of them to D1 will change the competitive landscape in either division.

Quote:

Originally Posted by vamp2syd

Open public schools having less success than closed public schools has nothing to do with anything.

This is your argument in a nutshell: Screw the facts, I have my beliefs.

I am wondering when the state is going to come out with the number of kids who are about to get cut from their high school teams because the coaches don't want them counted as roster spots! When will that number be released?

I am wondering when the state is going to come out with the number of kids who are about to get cut from their high school teams because the coaches don't want them counted as roster spots! When will that number be released?